Powell v. Young Community Developers

Background

Daniel Powell is representing himself. The court previously allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees and screened his original complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court found that complaint deficient and directed him to amend it. Powell filed a First Amended Complaint on March 10, 2026.

The amended complaint names Young Community Developers, the City and County of San Francisco, the San Francisco Office of Economic and Workforce Development, London Breed, Debra Mika, Darlene Lam, and a Jane Doe employee of Young Community Developers. Powell alleges that, beginning in April 2024, he was required to attend meetings and activities at Young Community Developers as a condition of receiving County Adult Assistance Program benefits. He alleges that staff tried to provoke him so he would appear aggressive and lose those benefits, despite knowing about his spinal injuries.

Powell also alleges that, during a May 2024 workshop, other clients confronted him and that a Jane Doe employee made racially based threats of violence. He alleges a broader conspiracy involving municipal entities and the Mayor’s Office. He also alleges misconduct involving service of process in an earlier state-court case.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied the screening requirement in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), which requires dismissal of a complaint filed without prepaying fees if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a legally sufficient claim, or seeks money from a defendant who is immune from such relief. The court applied the same pleading standard used for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

The court held that the amended complaint still violates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. That rule requires a short and plain statement explaining why the plaintiff is entitled to relief. The court found that Powell listed multiple claims and defendants but did not connect particular facts to particular claims or explain what each defendant allegedly did. The court described the pleading as a shotgun pleading because it bundled possible causes of action and supporting facts without making the connections clear.

The court also addressed Powell’s references to criminal statutes, including 18 U.S.C. §§ 113 and 249, and 18 U.S.C. § 63. It stated that private individuals cannot bring criminal charges or sue under criminal statutes that do not create a private cause of action. The court noted that § 63 does not exist and concluded that Powell lacks standing to bring claims that are criminal in nature.

Disposition

The court found that Powell’s First Amended Complaint fails to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). It did not dismiss the case in this order. Because Powell is representing himself and the court could not determine that the defects could not be corrected, the court ordered him to file a Second Amended Complaint by April 10, 2026. The new complaint must identify the defendants, explain the court’s jurisdiction, state the facts in numbered paragraphs, identify each legal claim separately, and explain what each defendant allegedly did. The court warned that failing to correct the deficiencies could lead to dismissal.